License Committee Report
prabhaka at apple.com
Tue Nov 9 13:39:23 UTC 2004
I appreciate your perspective, but I side with Russell on this one.
It is one thing for software which *distributes* the code to include an
advertisement, but a different thing for people who *use* a product to
be required to acknowledge it. If nothing else, it can become
arbitrarily difficult to determine if I've used an application which
might indirectly access the below-licensed product.
That said, I agree its a subtle point which the OSI should consider
carefully, but I still believe we should recommend rejection.
-- Ernie P.
IANAL, TINLA, TINAA, etc.
On Nov 8, 2004, at 3:52 PM, Jan Dockx wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2004, at 8:35h, Russell Nelson wrote:
>> I'm the chair of the license approval committee. This is my report
>> for the current set of licenses under discussion. If anybody
>> disagrees with my assessment of the committee's conclusions, say so
>> Title: Academic Citing License
>> License: in the submission.
>> Comments: Stephen C. North, among others, agrees with me that the
>> requirement to cite the software is a restriction on use rather than
>> distribution. Since we very much want to keep that camel's nose out
>> of the tent, we should reject this license, well-intentioned though
>> it is.
>> Recommend: rejection.
> I for one, don't agree with this assessment. The issue of the submitter
> is real, and doesn't impose on the
> spirit of Open Source. More to the point, I think that the license does
> not impose a restriction on use,
> but it does impose a restriction on the _distribution_ of the data and
> results gained from using the
> software. I believe the difference is significant. This issue doesn't
> differ significantly from the "obnoxious
> BSD advertising clause"-issue of the original BSD license, and the
> original BSD license is approved obviously.
> I ask the committee to take a second look at this issue.
More information about the License-discuss